pbi_generate_measure_tests

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like side effects or required permissions. It does not state whether executing tests modifies the model, is read-only, or what happens to existing data. This is a significant gap for a tool that 'executes' actions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks essential details and does not earn its place by providing value beyond the name. The tool demands more context (e.g., what smoke tests are, how execution works).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, existence of an output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output or behavior, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity about how to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (measures, max_measures, include_hidden). The agent must infer meaning solely from parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('generate and execute') and the resource ('smoke tests for DAX measures'), distinguishing it from similar sibling tools like pbi_lint_dax or pbi_validate_dax. However, 'smoke tests' could be more precisely defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_validate_dax or pbi_lint_dax. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.